wealthiest person in each state

Quote: AZDuffman

Student loans are all government so it can defer. Before the feds took it over in 2010 (which some Democrats in Congress did not even know when they questioned Jamie Dimon, et al) the feds paid the banks the interest while deferred. Reverse mortgage interest gets paid all the time, though some does defer. Usually an investor buys them, Fannie and Freddie being the biggest.

Trust me, "the rich" are not just taking loans upon loans rolling them over. I do not care what some lefty economist is claiming.

I suspect they could just keep getting loans secured by ever increasing capital assets, but you could be right. They may have to declare enough income to cover the interest, but interest is nothing these days. The fact remains they can spend lavishly without having to sell assets triggering taxes. I have no doubt there are more complicated strategies at work too.

I believe taxing consumption is the best way to bring it more into balance. I believe every Democrat presidential candidate last year proposed a wealth tax excepts Buttigieg. I oppose that on principle and I fear that sets a precedent that would some day allow them to grab smaller nest eggs because it's not fare that most others haven't saved so much.

You should read up on Kotikoff before you call him liberal. He's a big deficit hawk. Dems call him all kinds of names when they are in power.

Quote: rxwine

It's okay, just don't claim the ultra rich are geting soaked. They aren't. Dead people can't suffer from taxes. If so, prove it.

I don’t complain that the ultra rich are getting soaked. But doesn’t the top 1% pay around 50% of all federal taxes? No matter how much a rich guy pays the Democrats want him to pay more. I’m not even saying it is wrong for 1% to support the entire country, as they do now. I just hate when it is implied they don’t pay ‘their fair share’ or something like that.

Quote: rxwine

Who’s arguing communism? Unless that’s how you define defending a progressive tax system?

Who is saying a progressive income tax system is communism?
Communism/socialism is taxing wealth and redistributing it to the less wealthy.
It’s bad enough the wealthy are taxed at 37% on income when earned.
Propublic now argues that the unrealized growth of the remianing $0.63 should also be taxed.
Should we also tax the growth in retirement plan assets of everyday Americans?
What about gains in public employee pension funds?
It’s a LOL moment that the Left thinks this is a worthwhile point of discussion.
And no one on the Left brings up the massive estate tax burden on the $0.63
The rich lose $0.37 when income is earned and 50% of that when they die.
So yes, the rich are getting soaked when they earn & when they pass on billions.

Quote: JCW09

Who is saying a progressive income tax system is communism?
Communism/socialism is taxing wealth and redistributing it to the less wealthy.
It’s bad enough the wealthy are taxed at 37% on income when earned.
Propublic now argues that the unrealized growth of the remianing $0.63 should also be taxed.
Should we also tax the growth in retirement plan assets of everyday Americans?
What about gains in public employee pension funds?
It’s a LOL moment that the Left thinks this is a worthwhile point of discussion.
And no one on the Left brings up the massive estate tax burden on the $0.63
The rich lose $0.37 when income is earned and 50% of that when they die.
So yes, the rich are getting soaked when they earn & when they pass on billions.

All you have to do is look at the distribution of wealth to understand why any crying like you just did above is worth only crocodile tears. No one is is worried about the wealth of wealthy. Buffett summed it up nicely with this statement, "There's been class warfare for the last 20 years, and my class has won' ... We're the ones that have gotten our tax rates reduced dramatically. ... So, if there's class warfare, the rich class has won."

Quote: rxwine

All you have to do is look at the distribution of wealth to understand why any crying like you just did above is worth only crocodile tears. No one is is worried about the wealth of wealthy. Buffett summed it up nicely with this statement, "There's been class warfare for the last 20 years, and my class has won' ... We're the ones that have gotten our tax rates reduced dramatically. ... So, if there's class warfare, the rich class has won."

Gotten their rates reduced dramatically?

In 1987 the top rate was 28%.
Obama raised it to 39.6.

Quote: JimRockford

I suspect they could just keep getting loans secured by ever increasing capital assets, but you could be right. They may have to declare enough income to cover the interest, but interest is nothing these days. The fact remains they can spend lavishly without having to sell assets triggering taxes. I have no doubt there are more complicated strategies at work too.

That is just smart business. And you do not need to be rich. HELOCs let you do that. But thing is you pay the interest and the tax when you make that income. It is the old thing when you have a locked in mortgage. My rental is 3.25% for 30 years. Why on earth would I pay that back when I can do at least twice that in investments? Same thing with Bezos but on a larger scale.

Quote:

I believe taxing consumption is the best way to bring it more into balance. I believe every Democrat presidential candidate last year proposed a wealth tax excepts Buttigieg. I oppose that on principle and I fear that sets a precedent that would some day allow them to grab smaller nest eggs because it's not fare that most others haven't saved so much.

Of course it does! It always does! Income taxes were only supposed to be for the top 1%, within a generation everyone was paying. I would prefer we amend the Constitution to prohibit income taxes and go all consumption and excise taxes. If we did then we would not have people who pay no tax screaming they want "free college" and "free health care" and all the other handouts.

Quote: AZDuffman

... people who pay no tax screaming they want "free college" and "free health care" and all the other handouts.

Yes I think you can see how painless it is for them to be so free with tax dollars when you don't have skin in the game. Thanks, Bezos, Zuckerburg et al.

I think we have to accept that the super rich have always practiced massive tax avoidance even to the point of paying no income tax at all ... it's not new. When you hear that 'the wealthy' pay 50% of the income tax, it's not the super rich, it's athletes, businessmen, etc, with high incomes in 6-8 figures. Hard for Brady, say, to claim he has no income.

It's not really going to change even if it comes about that the top 0.1% in total wealth get hit with some of this confiscation in, say, 2022. Soon enough, there'll be new tax shelters in place to make up for it, politicians will see to it. But if it becomes OK to go after unrealized asset gains, or to simply tax all holdings of all kinds, we are all in for at the very least the nightmare of reporting it. The fact of the matter is, it's a Pandora's box we don't want to open. It's really no longer a free country if they can start making you sell your assets, it's the line that should not be crossed.

Quote: odiousgambit

Yes I think you can see how painless it is for them to be so free with tax dollars when you don't have skin in the game. Thanks, Bezos, Zuckerburg et al.

I think we have to accept that the super rich have always practiced massive tax avoidance even to the point of paying no income tax at all ... it's not new. When you hear that 'the wealthy' pay 50% of the income tax, it's not the super rich, it's athletes, businessmen, etc, with high incomes in 6-8 figures. Hard for Brady, say, to claim he has no income.

And you hit the nail on the head. From me as a landman to Jeff Bezos it is the same idea. You use a business to reduce income by subtracting expenses.

The NFL players who will draw their first paychecks next month will get slammed with taxes. Even if they have a real good manager who sets them up well they have no time to make their income "business income" and will not do so as W-2 employees. And you cannot make it to the billionaire club as an employee, you must have a business.

This, IMHO, though, is as it should be. Jeff Bezos started a business that employs 100000+ now. Why do we want to take that away? We want to encourage it. The pick-and-packer in the warehouse employs nobody else. The NFL Player might employ a person or two if that. But nothing is being created, no value.

BTW: performers are usually some kind of corporation. We were shown a HELOC app for a former Supremes member. They listed their "employer" as their personal corporation. So when they play Vegas for example, Steve Wynn does not hire them he hires their corporation. Said corp is of course going to pay all the roadies and crew. They will also pay for other things. Outfits, foof, whatever. Then it comes down to what the IRS allows. The corp might pay for the singer's car but there is tax on that to the singer. A good accountant has to make it all work out.

I’m sure I’m going to give you guys on the right more nightmares, but I wouldn’t have been too unhappy to see unionization across the entire entry level job force as a default condition.

Unions can provide prevention before waiting for problems to occur.

(Will wait for litany of negative aspects of unions to be mentioned). Of course, I have no problem with strict regulation of unions to keep abuses in check.

Quote: rxwine

I’m sure I’m going to give you guys on the right more nightmares, but I wouldn’t have been too unhappy to see unionization across the entire entry level job force as a default condition.

Unions can provide prevention before waiting for problems to occur.

(Will wait for litany of negative aspects of unions to be mentioned). Of course, I have no problem with strict regulation of unions to keep abuses in check.

Compulsory unions for everyone is a communist ideal. Your true colours are showing.